Subject: RE: The IETF Mission

From: "Christian Huitema" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2004 11:50:32 -0800

> Yes. So let's consciously endeavor to ensure that sigificant
> non-standards documents -- responsible position papers, white papers,
> new ideas, etc.  -- become RFCs.  (Making Internet Drafts into an
> archival series seems like a terrible idea to me, but that is a
> different topic.)

I could not agree more!
Obviously, we need some amount of peer review before a "white paper
draft" becomes a "white paper RFC", but I guess we know how to do that.

-- Christian Huitema

---

From: Bob Hinden <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2004 12:21:49 -0800

>draft" becomes a "white paper RFC", but I guess we know how to do that.

I agree with this as well.  I think it is important to keep the RFC series 
available for significant non-standards documents and IETF standards.

Bob

---

From: "Ayyasamy, Senthilkumar \(UMKC-Student\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 08:22:24 -0600

>>   o If one is revisiting the old ideas, they will most likely prefer
>>     mailing list archives (due to its descriptive nature) than RFC.
>
> Ummm, no. Most IETF mailing lists are pretty inaccessible to non-WG
> participants because no one ever summarizes ideas before WG last call.
 ...
> (note the recent discussion on end-to-end as the TCP
> research community realized that they weren't sure what was, and was
> not, TCP).
...
> Mailing list archives are an order of magnitude more difficult than 
> that (for the reasons previously stated).
 
so, RFCs too share the same problem (as per your reference to TCP 
related RFC issue.) we should be specific about what can be made 
into RFC; it should not also share the long process time associated 
with informational RFCs (e.g., area report series after every IETF 
meeting which summarize BOF results.)

---

From: Bob Braden <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 10:51:40 -0800 (PST)

*> This means drastically lowering the standards for what can be published 
  *> as an RFC. (Note that this brings us closer to what RFCs used to be 15 
  *> years or so ago.) Another way to do it would be to simply archive all 

I do not believe that it means lowering the standards at all, in
general.  In general, the documents we should be publishing as RFCs,
but are allowing to disappear into long-dead Internet Drafts, are every
bit as good quality as the RFCs we are publishing today (if not
better!).

Example: The RFC Editor has been pushing to get the current plateau of
the technical specification of HIP published as an RFC.  It's like
pulling teeth, for some reason, but hopefully we will make it.  The
current HIP architecture document is an important contribution that will
be a valuable reference to future Internet techies, regardless of the
future trajectory of the HIP protocol.

BTW, when you said 15 years you really meant 25, back to the late
ARPAnet and early Internet days.  15 years ago is relatively recent,
really part of "modern times" for the Internet community.  For example,
the Host Requirements RFCs (1122, 1123) were published 15 years ago.  I
don't think you would be lowering current standards to reach that
level.

  *> drafts. I agree this has the unpleasant side effect that all those 
  *> drafts that become obsolete (or are so from inception) stay around 
  *> forever. But it's still better than the current situation, where making 
  *> something an RFC means an incredible amount of work for many people, 

It is true that writing quality documents, no matter what
you call them, is always an "incredible amount of work."  Work well
spent, I believe.

Bob Braden